Parking lots; Abandoned lots; Park land; Vacant land. One of these things is not like the others, one of these things just doesn’t belong. But Kasey Etreni wouldn’t agree.
On March 6th, 2023, Thunder Bay Councillor-at-Large, Kasey Etreni, penned a memorandum to the City clerk, directing that City administration “compile a list of city-owned land, including parkland, with potential for surplus and provide recommendations on the potential parcels of land from that list that would benefit the city to surplus and sell” to accommodate potential housing developments.
“Including parkland”-was a necessary distinction to make in the request because most people would never conceive of erecting high-rise apartment buildings, or housing of any kind, in park land.
However, Etreni isn’t alone in her ‘build in a park’ vision and on January 13th, 10 Councillors and the Mayor voted in favour of selling the Community zoned park land as surplus, advancing a proposal which if successful, would see a 400-apartment unit development dropped in all 3-hectares of the Arundle park land located in Current River. Councillor Rajni Agarwal was the only member of Council who did not support the motion.
The Arundel park, much-loved and much-utilized by all community members, composes a larger greenspace complex, abutting Boulevard Lake and across from the Bluffs, and runs alongside the Arundel Active Living Corridor. The north end of the Arundel park, also juxtaposes the LPH trails/lands which are owned by the province and slated for future development.
Adjusted by 200 apartment units, down from 600 to 400, City Council half-heartedly debated the proposal, several extolling the revisions made by the developer to scale back the unit size of the development.
Councillor-at- Large, Mark Bentz was impressed by the amended number of units stating, “That’s very good. We’ve made some concessions. We’ve done some analyses and looked at densities and said these make sense in terms of density.”
However, the original concept presenting 600 units and 3 massive high-rise apartment buildings exceeded zoning bylaws which allows only for mid-rise developments.
Current River Councillor, Andrew Foulds, called out the bluff. “From my perspective, it seems, you shoot high and exceed the zoning -it’s not really a compromise. They are actually following the rules now,” remarked Foulds.
That the City would entertain a proposal that is in contravention with zoning bylaws raises concerns.
While the City has been forthcoming in acknowledging that they gave preference to high density housing proposals, and included this in their ranking criteria, the Arundel housing proposal of 600 apartment units never should have made it past the initial assessment. If this isn’t incompetency, it is something else.
Strategic lying, or deception, is a tactic used in the early stages of negotiating and is intended to mislead the other party regarding true intentions, and designed to create a sense of fear or urgency. We don’t know if it was incompetency or intentional deception that led to this proposal making it past the first gate, but the effect on Current River residents was palpable, spurring many to ‘burn the village to save the village’. In other words, many residents, in an attempt to salvage any of the park, conceded to a little bit of development in the park. That’s an early win, in advance of actual negotiations, for developers and those interested in pushing the ‘build in the park’ vision- whether a game was played or not.
The matter of presenting, to the community, an outrageous and untenable number of housing units in the Arundel proposal is not the only troublesome misrepresentation of reality in this unfolding, and unnecessary, housing vs. park saga.
In November 2025, the City reported that their online public feedback survey on the Arundel proposal, as well as three other housing development proposals, generated measurable engagement. At the January 13th, 2026 meeting, Director of Development Services, Joel DePeuter, doubled-down on the ‘positive’ survey findings reiterating, “Based on the Get Involved survey results, there is general public support to develop these sites for housing. More than 50% of respondents were supportive of developing each site for housing with an average of 59% of respondents being supportive.”
However, the presentation of online survey findings is misleading with City staff neglecting to clarify that community response rates to the survey were utterly abysmal, with just 142 residents of approximately 108,000 residents participating for a response rate of just .13% -and Council is not calling out this misrepresentation and puffery of facts.
From a research position, the reliability of online surveys is incredibly precarious, often suffering from bias and low response rates. Online surveys also risk being skewed by self-selected participants which could mean that of the 142 respondents, all could be City staff, developers, and contractors or all could be residents or it could be a diversity of people. But the point is, we just don’t know who is responding to online surveys. This is likely why the City has its own policy regarding petitions and requires that they are hard copied with original signatures.
Worth noting, is that an early petition, circulated by a Toledo street resident, which generated over 300 responses in opposition to the proposed Arundel development in a very short window of time, was rejected by the City. And why was this petition rejected? Well, because it was generated online- online just like the City’s own Get Involved survey. Why is there a different criteria for online submissions from taxpayers and City staff? The City’s standard to validate findings from a survey with an extremely low sample size, as well as having two separate online practices- one for City, one for taxpayers, suggests that the City’s engagement process has been merely an exercise in optics.
Also misleading, is the redesigned concept proposal which was necessary to reflect the downsized number of units and also to tamp down the horror expressed by residents when laying eyes for the first time on the 600-unit monstrosity, stylized in the fashion of eastern bloc tenement housing. The new rendering depicts a cozy and even pretty complex, nestled among colourful trees.
I’m not an architect but it is very obvious that the new concept does not accurately depict the scale of the housing project and these units will likely still exceed the mid-rise zoning requirements. Essentially, the new concept meant to be more visually appealing, appears to be an architectural catfish. Unfortunately, Council is not questioning scale, and it is at the expense of public knowledge and perception. In fact, many Councillors seem contented to rely on the ‘experts’, as Northwood Ward Councillor, Dominic Pasqualino expressed at the January 13th meeting.
Perhaps most mind-boggling, is the opinion of many Councillors, that building apartment buildings in the park land preserves greenspace. Dispersing her insights, Etreni stated, “There’s a lot of concern -and I understand that, about saving and caution about using greenspace. I understand that. I really do. However, the concepts that have come forward will actually allow for us to use less greenspace. If we had the same number of units as single individual dwellings, that would use quite substantially more greenspace.” Councillor Brian Hamilton and Councillor Trevor Giertuga both agreed with the theory.
This is another misleading strategy, known as ‘Greenwashing’, which is used to deceive stakeholders, often relying on rationalization to justify actions taken by corporations. Greenwashing is often employed when pushing projects that target natural habitats and used to reframe destructive projects as ‘eco-friendly’ or sustainable.
Furthermore, it has been proven that the very best way to preserve park land and greenspace is to simply leave it alone.
But Mayor Boshcoff has been dogged about validating the housing build in the Arundel park, leaning on the point that Thunder Bay is surrounded by the Boreal forest. Many would argue, though, that there is little natural beauty to be found within Thunder Bay and if the City administration and developers continue to exploit parks and remaining greenspaces in Thunder Bay, there will be increasingly less of it.
In response to a question put forward by Mayor Boshcoff regarding Thunder Bay’s park land rating per capita, Parks and Open Spaces Planning Supervisor, Werner Schwar, provided that participation in the 2024 Canadian City Parks Report showed that the City “had the second highest percentage of park land that is natural area at 85%”.
Natural area park lands are protected greenspaces that preserve native ecosystems, support wildlife, and allow for low-impact public recreation such as the trails found in Centennial Park and the Cascades.
Though only 35 (.7%) out of approximately 5,000 Canadian municipalities participated in the study, Mayor Boshcoff was satisfied that the findings should provide assurances that Thunder Bay is in a good position regarding park land relative to the rest of Canada, stating, “I think the numbers certainly should calm everyone down in terms of where we are. We are way at the top.”
The comment from the Mayor insinuates that he believes Thunder Bay has park land to spare and indicates his level of comfort with selling off bits of our park spaces for development, in spite of the fact that the City has also provided ample urban infill sites for housing projects.
Councillor Foulds had a different take on the matter stating, “The commentary from Supervisor Schwar is that we were the second highest in park land. I’m not sure that’s something we should be ashamed of-that’s a good thing.” He went on further, adding, “…one of the reasons I feel so strongly about trees, is that you can’t out engineer a tree when it comes to storm water management. I’m not committing to how I’m voting on rezoning or the sale of purchase. I will make a decision based on evidence and I do rely heavily on our very professional and competent staff to provided that to me and I combine that with the public commentary I receive from my constituents.”
Thunder Bay residents understand that there is need for more housing. But there are suitable opportunity sites for development, that are not park land or greenspace sites. The City administration also shared that there are additional urban infill sites being considered though those locations have not been publicly disclosed at this time.
Council’s indifference to the historical significance of the Arundel park and its immeasurable value on the ecosystem and wholistic wellbeing of all residents is astonishing.
This is not a matter of choosing between housing or our park. It is possible for Thunder Bay to preserve urban parks and forests as well as increase housing supply. And this is the correct course of action because park land is not like a parking lot, an abandoned lot, or vacant land. And apartment buildings do not belong in a park.
Read more: Not in My Greenspace, Selling our Parkland since 2023
Visit TBay Greenspace Preservation for more information about Thunder Bay greenspaces and current housing developments.
If you would like to share you concerns regarding housing development in the Arundel park land or any other greenspaces slated for development, contact your Councillors and Mayor: ken.boshcoff@thunderbay.ca; Rajni.Agarwal@thunderbay.ca; trevor.giertuga@thunderbay.ca; kasey.etreni@thunderbay.ca; andrew.foulds@thunderbay.ca; albert.aiello@thunderbay.ca; brian.hamilton@thunderbay.ca; dominic.pasqualino@thunderbay.ca; michael.zussino@thunderbay.ca; kristen.oliver@thunderbay.ca; shelby.chng@thunderbay.ca; mark.bentz@thunderbay.ca
